How do adcoms look at research and leadership from work?

[tyrannosaurus_wrecks]

I work in data analytics and process improvement at a hospital. Most of my job involves involves being in charge of data-gathering/processing projects, troubleshooting issues, finding things we can improve on, etc. The hospital is pretty small so I also do a fair bit of original research in geriatric psych--nothing groundbreaking but certainly interesting to us in terms of improving patient outcomes. I haven't held any formal leadership positions but I've led plenty of projects.

Would adcoms look at these the same way they look at research I did as part of a more formal internship during undergrad? Or leadership positions I held as an undergrad (like president of a student org)? Asking as a nervous nontrad...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pigsinacloth]

I don't necessarily know what an adcom would think of this, but I (med student) would be interested in talking to you. It sounds like you actually do what every premed says they want to do with their research (improve hospital flow/patient care). Also you're doing it in what I assume is probably a community hospital where it would probably be easier to implement change. So if you have any experience talking to the hospital administration about what you found or things they can do that would be super cool!

I am going to guess that you don't really get publications with this position, but you probably would if you were at a bigger hospital system. I would imagine that there are a good number of attendings that would love to have you on their team!

 

[jhmmd]

I work in data analytics and process improvement at a hospital. Most of my job involves involves being in charge of data-gathering/processing projects, troubleshooting issues, finding things we can improve on, etc. The hospital is pretty small so I also do a fair bit of original research in geriatric psych--nothing groundbreaking but certainly interesting to us in terms of improving patient outcomes. I haven't held any formal leadership positions but I've led plenty of projects.

Would adcoms look at these the same way they look at research I did as part of a more formal internship during undergrad? Or leadership positions I held as an undergrad (like president of a student org)? Asking as a nervous nontrad...

I don't see why not. Just be able to explain what you did, how you were able to help, and have plenty of anecdotes.

 

[tyrannosaurus_wrecks]

I don't necessarily know what an adcom would think of this, but I (med student) would be interested in talking to you. It sounds like you actually do what every premed says they want to do with their research (improve hospital flow/patient care). Also you're doing it in what I assume is probably a community hospital where it would probably be easier to implement change. So if you have any experience talking to the hospital administration about what you found or things they can do that would be super cool!

I am going to guess that you don't really get publications with this position, but you probably would if you were at a bigger hospital system. I would imagine that there are a good number of attendings that would love to have you on their team!

Yeah imo it's one of the perks of working in a smaller hospital (geri psych-specific). I think I was given much more free rein than is customary for someone with my job title which definitely was good for personal/professional development. Loooots of practice talking to hospital admins about funding and scope of projects, actionable items that work for our budgets. I imagine that will come in handy at some point in the future. No publications since that's not really our focus and honestly as a data person, it feels like there are a few too many holes in some of our collections methods sometimes for me to be comfortable publishing it anyways. Good to hear your take on this, thanks!

 

[tyrannosaurus_wrecks]

I don't see why not. Just be able to explain what you did, how you were able to help, and have plenty of anecdotes.

I guess I was thinking maybe they wouldn't be recognized equally since one is clearly delineated as an experience undertaken with the intent of conducting research and one is not (eg. being a research assistant at a lab for a summer vs. having a research project at work as a data analyst). Same for any sort of leadership experience (eg. being a club president vs. being in charge of a project at work). But you raise a good point. It's potato potato.

 

[jhmmd]

Well be prepared to categorize your job as research and other things as leadership (you know that the AMCAS app asks for different things on different parts of the app). But yeah, I agree with you, pecan pecan.

 

[K-Frog]

Yes, that kind of research is different. But it is all about how you present it. Medical schools are looking for excellent applicants and love those who are unique. If you can explain what a strong and positive experience you have had and the impact you are making, you won't go wrong. A lot of people have really good experiences but because they are a little different, they shy away from explaining them well. Instead of a positive they cover them up like it is a negative.

Project leadership is leadership. Again it is all about what you did as a leader and how you explain it. Leadership is not a title. A title just makes it easier to explain.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I am not entirely sure, but usually when we look at "research", we expect hypothesis-driven experimental-based research. While process improvement can require some of the same skills that would help you with "research", many basic scientists who might review your application may not agree this counts in the typical bucket. Some clinical faculty who understand or are involved with systems improvements may appreciate it better. That said, the question would be obvious on why you feel being involved as a clinician is improved by your insight into systems improvement as many physicians find it intrusive to their "calling" of helping others (generalizing).

 

[jhmmd]

Yes, most schools require what is called a "hook;" i.e. a story/narrative/something unique about you that ties your app together and makes you different. With a 40% overall acceptance rate (amongst QUALIFIED applicants), you can see why.

 

[tyrannosaurus_wrecks]

I am not entirely sure, but usually when we look at "research", we expect hypothesis-driven experimental-based research. While process improvement can require some of the same skills that would help you with "research", many basic scientists who might review your application may not agree this counts in the typical bucket. Some clinical faculty who understand or are involved with systems improvements may appreciate it better. That said, the question would be obvious on why you feel being involved as a clinical is improved by your insight into systems improvement as many physicians find it intrusive to their "calling" of helping others (generalizing).

I would say about 60% of my "research" falls into the PI bucket and 40% falls into the bucket of what's more traditionally considered research. The ultimate goal is process improvement in the sense that we want to improvement patient outcomes and quality of life so I do focus quite a bit on improving existing workflows but for the most part, it's very much structured in the same way my previous traditional lab-based research. I think what happens after the project in terms of action items might just be a little different. Not sure if that would really change how it's perceived.

If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate a bit on what you mean in your last sentence? Did you mean that there are physicians who find systems improvement work intrusive? Would they ask why my current work would be beneficial to potentially working as a physician or something like that?

Edit: I reread your last sentence and I answered my own question re asking about PI helping with work as a physician. Would you mind elaborating on physicians finding PI intrusive though? Other than them not liking change?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I reread your last sentence and I answered my own question re asking about PI helping with work as a physician. Would you mind elaborating on physicians finding PI intrusive though? Other than them not liking change?

Briefly, yeah, most physicians to me seem very overwhelmed with "process", and a they really dislike administrative interference from the start (extra paperwork/documentation, less time to prepare for patient visits, follow-up with patients online, etc.). Process change from (hospital) administration does not always make their jobs easier. (For example, a new communications system which should make it easier to streamline and document calls with office management software isn't as efficient as anticipated or tested.)

 

[tyrannosaurus_wrecks]

Briefly, yeah, most physicians to me seem very overwhelmed with "process", and a they really dislike administrative interference from the start (extra paperwork/documentation, less time to prepare for patient visits, follow-up with patients online, etc.). Process change from (hospital) administration does not always make their jobs easier. (For example, a new communications system which should make it easier to streamline and document calls with office management software isn't as efficient as anticipated or tested.)

Ah yes, that’s always the hard part. Hard to find balance sometimes. Noted, thanks for the insight!